Re: The Property Protocol

Suresh Naidu (
Mon, 4 Nov 1996 21:27:51 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 wrote:

> In a message dated 96-11-04 04:48:43 EST, you write:
> <<
> Ian Goddard wrote:
> > Allocation of resources by consumer choice, by the voice
> > of the people, founded upon the theory and application of private
> > property, contract law, and tort liability consistently prove to
> > yield maximal social outcomes [SNiP]

Vote by the dollar, huh?

> <<Banjo>> i disagree>>
> Why? Do you have better alternatives? Better than. . . Capitalism?
> What's wrong with consumer choice and the voice of the people?

That's not "the voice of the people". That translates into a dollar a
vote. The people with the money get the ability to influence the lives of
everybody else. So I guess it's the "voice of the people who count"

> << how does "maximal social outcomes" coincide with high poverty,
> homelessness, a stuffed-to-overflowing penal system, and as
> Are you talking about the USSR and China? They are the lowest standard of
> living I can think of in industrialized countries. They have high poverty
> and overflowing prisons. The "homeless" in the US have the highest standard
> of living than in "homeless"any other county. Even Jesus said the poor, they
> will always be with us.

Oh, great, and The Words of God(tm), are a good basis for dealing with
society. Why should we accept poverty? If we are talkking about such
grandiose things as uploading, Dyson Spheres and immortality, why can't
we discuss utopias for all. It shouldn't be beyond humanity's grasp.

> << Dale Carnegie said a place where " and poor are both free
> to sleep under bridges".>>
> Dale Carnegie? Mr. _How to Win Friends and Influence People_. You are free
> to be rich or poor, it is up to you.
> <<some people don't win in a market economy>>
> This is not a meaningful statement. Some people are lazy, stupid or
> pessimistic too. Tell me of a situation were most people win: Anytime you

Some people are victims of geography, some people are born handicapped.
Does that mean they should be ground up by the wheels of the capitalist
machine? Libertarianism would work if everybody could compete on fair
terms, but they can't, so some are going to lose all the time.

What is considered a fair advantage and what is considered unfair?

When we get genetic engineering, will genetic flaws be considered an
unfair advantage?

> <<Banjo>> i don't understand. are you saying that someone who "suffers
> material
> privation" (aka Poverty), deserves it. Is the market equivalent of
> an outcaste or hermit ??>>
> If a business is not compelled to serve the consumer, the consumer will not
> (and should not) buy from that business again. That business DOES deserve
> not getting business again. Call this an "outcaste" or "hermit" business.
> But you don't have much of a business then do you. You have killed your own
> business. This was not an initiation of harm except self-inflicted.
Businesses can thrive quite well even if they don't serve the consumers.
they can subsist solely on the desires of the wealthy. If you make
something only the people who can afford it want, then that's all that
matters. Anyone else isn't in the "market demographics"

Suresh Naidu
occaisonal student
math 1a, computer science

Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.